Michael Carr, radical Log Cabin Republican, running for Colorado state senate

Michael Carr is the Republican candidate for Colorado’s State Senate District 31 due to a vacancy committee appointment. But his past remarks are a cause for great concern to anyone not on board with the LGBT political agenda.

I saw Carr speak at a February meeting of the Coalition for a Conservative Majority as part of a panel on diversity in the conservative movement.

Carr described himself as an Irish Catholic from the south side of Chicago. He now lives in the Capitol Hill neighborhood with his partner. Carr brought up the Illinois civil unions bill and how he had supported it and lobbied for it.

There was something about the bill he didn’t mention.

The State of Illinois used the civil unions bill to shut down Catholic adoption agencies that contracted with the state government to continue their decades of service. The oversight of over 2,500 children was displaced to other agencies in an entirely unnecessary move.

In the audience question time I addressed Carr about how that bill pushed Catholic Charities out of doing adoptions. I asked him whether there is a "zero sum game" situation between gay rights advocates and religious and social conservatives.

Carr had an easy out.

The closure of Catholic Charities adoption agencies was a shock to those who believed the promises that religious freedom would be protected.

All he had to do was voice his support for religious freedom protections and lament the bill wasn’t passed in a way that respects the diversity of opinion on a controversial issue.

Instead, Carr spent a few minutes defending the need for government to be neutral and serve everybody.

“Is there a zero-sum game?” I asked again. Again he dodged.

His comments were in line with his April 12, 2011 remarks at the Illinois Log Cabin Republicans blog opposing a bill to secure the right of religious organizations to continue their adoption services. Carr said supporters of that bill “should be ashamed of themselves.”

There is nothing shameful in recognizing that a married man and a woman are better for raising children than any other family structure. There is nothing shameful at wanting a child to be brought up morally right.

There is nothing shameful about Catholics and others running adoption agencies in partnership with the state in a way that reflects their moral principles.

Carr’s position allows LGBT activists to bar Catholics and others who rightly object to homosexual relations from their place in public service. As the fate of adoption agencies in Illinois shows, the pretty talk of tolerance and diversity is empty.

Carr’s Democratic rival, the openly gay State Sen. Pat Steadman, is the sponsor of Colorado’s proposed civil unions bill. But even Steadman adopted language protecting religious adoption agencies into his bill.

The sorry state of the Republican Party means that religious believers and others who reject gay political causes have few friends.

Carr himself helped put on the GOP state assembly ballot a pro-civil unions resolution that won a majority vote, but failed to reach a 2/3 supermajority necessary for adoption.

There are some bright lights in our state. Colorado’s Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty threw the legislature into a special session rather than adopt civil unions. But the Republican House majority rests on a one-vote margin and is being vigorously contested in the 2012 election.

For years, pundits and party activists have been telling social conservatives to keep quiet. The present situation is what social conservatives get for taking their advice.

Fox 31 spikes $2 million quote about Tim Gill’s 2012 election spending

The death of a proposed civil unions bill in the Colorado House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee deeply angered Tim Gill, the multi-millionaire gay activist whose smartly targeted campaign spending has helped re-shape Colorado politics.

Gill’s lawyer Ted Trimpa said Gill will now be spending millions more to defeat Republicans across the state, starting with GOP members of the statehouse, Fox 31 News reports.

“It might be a difference of, before, spending $200,000 [on 2012 House races], and now spending $2 million,” Trimpa said.

Or at least, that’s what he said before Fox 31 edited the story to remove the quote.

The National Organization for Marriage blog caught the edit.

Fox 31 reporter Eli Stokols’ story now closes with Trimpa saying “It's very likely there will be consequences for not allowing full debate and consideration by the full House.”

The story no longer mentions dollar amounts.

An inquiry about the edit sent to Fox 31 and Mr. Stokols received no reply.

Regular news writers know there can be many reasons for modifying a quote. Perhaps Trimpa was talking off-the-cuff and the dollar amounts were inexact and inflated.

Or perhaps the writer or editor of the story felt forced to keep a key source happy and spiked revealing inside information about the 2012 election.

Colorado’s Republicans have a bare 33-32 majority in the House and a big money man could have disproportionate impact on the future of our state.

Of all issues to swing elections, the civil unions issue is one of the least important. While support for such unions has increased in the U.S. since they were first created in Vermont in 2000, their possible ramifications are under-debated.

We have heard little about the burdens to over-regulated business owners and objecting religious organizations, the potential for abuse, and even the basic financial costs of implementation to cash-strapped state, county and municipal governments.

The debate’s focus was entirely on gay rights even though the bill also allows unrelated heterosexual couples to contract unions – which in France has resulted in more civil unions than civil marriages!

In hard times, we should look not to create new facsimiles of the family. Rather, we should look to the tried and tested family policy of the New Deal. Scholars like Allan Carlson have praised that era’s focus on shaping economic policy specifically to help a working man support a wife and kids.

But that’s not an option Tim Gill and friends would like to be on the agenda.

When an obsessed multi-millionaire aims to change the political landscape and rewrite the social constitution of our state, his activities deserve more media scrutiny, not less. Fox 31’s edit suggests the news media is telling us less than we deserve to know.

Does Tim Gill have an agent in the Scott McInnis camp?

Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis’ chief communications director is Sean Duffy. A former deputy chief-of-staff for Gov. Bill Owens, Duffy supported the same-sex “domestic partnership” referendum on the 2006 ballot.

A December 2006 article in National Review claimed that Duffy was hired for the referendum effort by Tim Gill, Colorado’s wealthy homosexual activist who with Jared Polis and others has tried to buy up the state.

Regardless of Gill’s exact role in appointing him, there is no question Duffy served as executive director for Coloradans for Fairness and Equality.

Duffy also attacked the 2006 Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor, Janet Rowland, as “a clearly homophobic choice” when she ridiculed the idea of same-sex “marriage” by asking whether a man should be allowed to marry a sheep.

He appears to have been motivated by loyalty to his homosexual sister, so the issue is personal for him.

A Gill ally, whatever his competence and personal character, really shouldn’t be the media face for a potential GOP governor. After all, Gill told the DNC that the GOP is “full of bigots” who should be driven from power.

What Colorado Republican should overlook a highly placed staffer with the opinions of a CU-Boulder diversity trainer?

Rocky Mountain Right has noted the same problem with Duffy.

As for McInnis himself, he spoke to KHOW’s Caplis & Silverman last year about some of his positions.

Asked about the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), for which he had voted as a Congressman, McInnis responded with both a commitment and a non-commitment:
“I oppose gay marriage, [I’m] very clear about that. Civil unions, that’s not a big issue. Gay marriage is a big issue.”

It’s increasingly apparent that civil unions are intended to shift the debate and depict conservatives, or even 1990s liberals, as extremists for opposing them. Unprincipled but well-meaning moderates think the push will stop there, but the legal unions just create another foothold for the cultural left to suppress opposition to itself.

McInnis isn’t going to prove much of an adversary to Gill and company.

Indeed, Duffy’s placement in the Owens administration and the McInnis campaign suggests that Gill’s cohort already has a significant foothold. Seen in this light, accusations of Republican bigotry look like mere political theater.

Republican activists show little seriousness about moral conservatism in their personal lives and their philosophies. Their public appeals to it are opportunistic and shallow. What better way for Gill to advance his agenda than through the pretense that these are the people standing in the way of his vision?

Depict those who are unlikely to reverse your agenda as your most formidable opponents. Convince your real opposition to rally around compromised and wavering leaders. After a few small skirmishes, for appearance’s sake, take control of the field and accept the phony general’s surrender.

There seem few obvious ways to counter this phenomenon, if it is indeed what is happening. But skepticism towards a compromised leadership should be a start.


Update:

These concerns would be made redundant if McInnis doesn't win the GOP nomination. McInnis opponent Dan Maes won the majority of votes at the state assembly, a surprise only to those who have not observed McInnis' cool reception among party regulars.

Is Beauprez endorsement of Lang Sias rooted in Ryan Frazier's social conservative problem?

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez's endorsement of retired Navy officer Lang Sias has perplexed Ben DeGrow of the People's Press Collective, who supports Ryan Frazier as the GOP candidate for CD-7.

In his comments, DeGrow sees the endorsement as a sign of Beauprez's dwindling relevance. In my view, he wrongly interprets the former Congressman's praise for Sias as an attack on Frazier. It could more easily be read as an attack on Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter, if indeed it is an attack at all.

However, on the matter of Beauprez's motivation, there is significant chatter among social conservatives about Frazier's credentials, or lack thereof. Some potential donors have even shied away from the candidate.

One of my sources, a sober social conservative who judges his words carefully, has written that the candidate is "definitely not pro-life and pro-family," quoting Westword:

"[Frazier's] markedly liberal stance on social issues is likely to put off his party's conservative Christian base. While he's not necessarily pro-choice, he noted that 'I am not a fan of abortion, but I struggle with whether it is the appropriate role of the government to place itself there.' He's also been very public in his support of benefits for same-sex couples."

My source spoke with Frazier and mentioned the Westword article to him. The candidate "bristled" when questioned, but he confirmed that it was "substantially true."

A candidate questionnaire from Frazier would appear to contradict this evidence. There, Frazier wrote "I am pro-life, from conception until natural death. I believe that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion. In fact, protecting life is a paramount duty of any lawful government... Every life should be allowed to come into this world."

However, my source plainly recalled that Frazier repeated the boilerplate "rape and incest" exceptions when explaining his position. He was caught short when challenged with the consistent pro-life position, as if he had never heard it before. So there too are ambiguities.

Many would tolerate his unclear "struggle" with legal protections for the unborn were he just a friend, but they will not tolerate that in a candidate.

Furthermore, Frazier's support for same-sex couple benefits represents a novel expansion of government power and a surrender to cultural leftism. Too many Colorado Republicans whine about Tim Gill, but then turn around and support the advancement of Gill's most cherished policies.

It is possible these grave betrayals of conservative principle are a factor driving Beauprez's endorsement, even though they go unmentioned in his letter. He is a former Catholic youth minister, after all.

DeGrow's comments include a standard appeal to the Future, saying the Beauprez endorsement "comes across more as a leading figure of the Colorado GOP’s stodgy Old Guard missing the boat on the enthusiasm and energy behind the fiscally conservative, pro-liberty 'New Way Forward' embodied in Frazier’s campaign."

These are typical PPC talking points, which (like the Frazier campaign website's issue section) lack a shout out to social conservatism.

Republican activists in the Denver area have shown themselves to be tone-deaf about SoCon concerns, to the point where a Denver Metro Young Republicans' meeting venue is a hamburger diner with homosexual camp themes. This suggests political incompetence and anti-conservative hostility as well as questionable principles, a point I have tried to drive home to them.

Social conservatives more often have familial, civic and religious duties. Thus they are generally underrepresented in the libertarian-skewed political debate.

If the Frazier campaign stalls on their issues, he won't stop the chatter and he won't attract their votes in the general election. His supporters can argue that Perlmutter's positions are more repellent, but that's not an argument that can sustain enthusiasm.



Twitter: @bobbeauprez @LangSias @RyanFrazier2010 @peoplespress @kevinjjones

Fred Phelps' crew to "protest" Boulder marriage debate tonight

Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church has announced it is protesting outside the venue of the debate between Maggie Gallagher and Jonathan Rauch tonight.

This will have the benefit of making Ms. Gallagher look like the moderate she is.

However, the debate will show a gaping hole between Gallagher's position and Phelps' that needs to be filled in public debates like this. You know the same-sex "marriage" debate is artificially limited because there are no open, non-kook representatives from the 40% of Americans who still support anti-s-domy laws.

Maggie Gallagher and Jonathan Rauch to debate same-sex 'marriage' at CU-Boulder

UPDATE: This could get interesting.* Fred Phelps' crew is heading to Boulder for the debate.

*As James Poulos has noted: "The interesting is not the good."
====

On Monday, January 25, the Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought, the intellectual outreach arm of the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center, will hold the third annual “Great Debate” on the University of Colorado campus and host nationally-known speakers Jonathan Rauch and Maggie Gallagher for a debate entitled “Should the Government Approve Same-Sex Marriage?”

Last year’s “Great Debate” featured Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens [KJJ: Not that great] and drew a crowd of over 2,400 people to CU’s campus to hear the debate on “Atheism vs. Religion.” Over 2,000 people are expected to attend again this year and tickets are currently on sale. Tickets are $10 per adult, $5 per student and can be purchased at www.thomascenter.org or at any King Soopers.

Monday, January 25, 2010 at 7pm
University of Colorado-Boulder, Macky Auditorium Cristol Chemistry 140
All are welcome.

“The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of engaging in public debate on important ideas and issues of the time, even those controversial in nature. Given the growing national interest in the same-sex marriage debate, the Catholic Center has decided to provide a forum to openly discuss the merits of both sides of this issue, on the campus of Colorado’s flagship university,” said Father Kevin Augustyn, director of Campus Ministry at the St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center.

“In the tradition of the Catholic Center’s patron saint, St. Thomas Aquinas, who intelligently and fervently engaged the ideas and controversies of his day with age and grace, we hope to provide a stimulating intellectual discussion on the same-sex marriage debate.”

(Source: Jan. 12 Thomas Center Press Release)

---

The first debate featured Peter Kreeft and David Boonin on the ethics of abortion. See too my personal take on the debate and the fine work of the Thomas Aquinas Catholic Center.


Twitter: NOMTweets ThomasCenter kevinjjones

With Chai Feldblum, polygamists gain a foothold in the Obama Administration

A law professor nominated by President Obama to become a commissioner for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was a signatory to a radical 2006 manifesto which endorsed polygamous households and argued traditional marriage should not be privileged “above all others.”

So reports CNA in its story "Obama EEOC nominee signed radical marriage manifesto that praised polygamy" about Georgetown University (sigh.) law professor Chai R. Feldblum.

CNA adds:

Describing various kinds of households as no less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy than other relationships, the Beyond Marriage manifesto listed “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.”

[...]

“Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others,” the manifesto continued. “While we honor those for whom marriage is the most meaningful personal ­– for some, also a deeply spiritual – choice, we believe that many other kinds of kinship relationship, households, and families must also be accorded recognition.”

One signatory of the Beyond Marriage manifesto, Michael Bronski, once complained that he and his allies were being treated like skunks at a garden party for hitching polygamist and polyamorist concerns to the same-sex "marriage" debate.

Now someone who thinks "committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner" are equally worthy to natural marriage is positioned to become a major influence in the enforcement of workplace anti-discrimination law. The pro-family New Deal Democrats must be spinning in their graves.


UPDATE: In her Senate confirmation hearing, Feldblum disavowed the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage manifesto.

She called it "overly broad" and a "mistake" to sign. She professed disagreement with unspecified parts of the document.

It is difficult to believe that a Georgetown law professor wouldn't realize what she was signing, and so it is difficult to believe her disavowal is authentic.

Newsweek embarrasses itself with 'biblical' gay marriage essay

Lisa Miller’s amateurish Newsweek opinion piece arguing for a Biblical basis for same-sex “marriage” has deservedly attracted much criticism. Miller’s essay, Our Mutual Joy was an easy takedown.

Representative of the quality of her argument is this passage: “It probably goes without saying that the phrase ‘gay marriage’ does not appear in the Bible at all.”

That “probably” is an unintentional, comical touch. The ancient Hebrews were more advanced than we are in this respect: they didn’t waste time tiresomely pondering whether a man and a man or a woman and a woman could marry each other.

GetReligion.org’s Mollie Hemingway penned two capable critiques, Sola scriptura minus the scriptura and What’s the Standard?

The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison also weighed in concerning Newsweek editor Jon Meacham’s vacuous remarks expressing his poor theology.

Courtesy of Baylor University’s Prof. Francis Beckwith, who notes other good responses, we find Rob Bowman’s solid critique at Religious Researcher.

Bowman particularly responds to Miller’s dismissive remarks about Leviticus.

Gay activists cite Leviticus with frequency and stupidity. Using analysis fit only for a bumper sticker, they cite the only passage they know: one which forbids shellfish.

Miller follows their shallow example, writing: “Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?”

Bowman responds:

In the very chapters condemning homosexual acts (in 18:22 and 20:13), Leviticus also condemns incest (18:6-18; 20:11-12, 14, 17, 19-21), adultery (18:20; 20:10), child-sacrifice (18:21; 20:2-5), and bestiality (18:23; 20:15-16). The texts condemning homosexual acts are sandwiched immediately between texts condemning child-sacrifice and bestiality in chapter 18 (18:21-23) and between texts condemning different types of incest in chapter 20 (20:12-14).

In the intervening chapter, Leviticus contains what used to be its most famous injunction: “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (19:18), quoted by Jesus as the second of the two greatest commandments (Matt. 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; cf. Luke 10:27).

He charges that the main problem with Miller’s “stock objection" to Leviticus' teaching about homosexual conduct "is not that it pays attention to their context but that it does not pay sufficient, close attention to their context.”

Miller's appeal to the "length" of biblical passages as a measure of their authority is also sophomoric. The gravity of the acts under discussion was so obvious to their audience that the biblical authors would have had no need to go into the obscene details.

The journalistic take on Miller’s essay is also devastating.

“It is no exaggeration to say the piece was an embarrassment,” remarked GetReligion.org’s Mollie Hemingway. She said pieces like Miller’s essay have helped make Newsweek “more or less the laughingstock of the journalism world.”

Referencing Miller’s essay, she accused Newsweek editor Jon Meacham of “trading journalism for hackery and propaganda."

"There was precisely no one provoked to think in any meaningful sense by that last cover story. People were simply provoked to drop subscriptions or otherwise think less of Newsweek. It didn’t engage the Scriptural arguments in favor of traditional marriage fairly or honestly. The only people who would even remotely enjoy that story or find it thoughtful are people who were already inclined to believe it.”

While Newsweek has acknowledged its critics, it remains to be seen whether it will provide a platform for a competent advocate of marriage as a union between man and woman.

As evidence this platform might not be forthcoming, we note comments made at the annual conference of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, held in Washington, D.C. in August.

There David Waters, editor of the “On Faith” blog which appears on the Newsweek web site, urged reporters to avoid prominent Christian leaders and focus only on “real people.”

According to the Culture and Media Institute, at the conference “the discussion quickly degenerated into a seminar on how journalists can ‘conquer’ the religion debate to advance the homosexual political agenda.”

Waters remarked:

I think, as journalists, our No. 1 obligation is obviously to the truth, and if we’re going to be about the truth then we have to fight and we have to fight for space and for time to tell the right story and to tell the real story, and I think the best way to go about that, at least I’ve found in my experience with my own reporting and with other reporters, is to take time and not go to the Pat Robertsons and the James Dobsons of the world but to find the real people who are really struggling with this issue.

People who are “struggling with this issue” are people of no clear opinion. Waters advocates shutting out those clearly opposed to his agenda, a plausible but wicked strategy. He would make the muddle-headed out to be moderates and reserve clarity only for his political allies in advocacy, who could then define the range of acceptable debate.

Another speaker at the conference, defrocked United Methodist minister Jimmy Creech, advised that journalists not make themselves “complicit” in popularizing the comments of religious leaders Creech considers to be “fringe” and “radical.”

Newsweek is quickly learning that there are real people who are not “struggling with this issue” and who don’t want to pay for predictable and poorly-argued religious opinions (which blogs provide for free).

Its future does not look bright.

Last year, the magazine cut its subscriber number guarantees to advertisers from 3.1 million to 2.6 million. Now the Wall Street Journal reports that Newsweek “could subtract anywhere from 500,000 to one million copies from its current guarantee of 2.6 million.”

They say money follows quality. Judging from recent events, Newsweek is missing both.

Addendum:
Newsweek's website has posted a response, awkwardly titled
No Case for Homosexuality in Bible, written by Joseph Bottum, John Mark Reynolds, and Bruce D. Porter. Will Newsweek publish this in its print edition?

At the DNC: The LGBT Caucus

As one who is occasionally optimistic about the state of the Democratic Party, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) Caucus was disillusioning for me. I found that the newest faction of politicized sexual liberation is well-organized, well-funded, and willing to use raw power when it can.

Even so, it was surprising how some speakers played to the melodramatic stereotypes attributed to their members. Caucus Chairman Rick Stafford flatteringly but falsely declared the caucus the “best dressed” at the convention. His announcement that Ben Affleck had donated 25 VIP badges for the Starz Green Room prompted some attendees to bolt to the distribution like teenage girls in the throes of Beatlemania.

One actor from the X-Men movie, I believe it was “Nightcrawler” Alan Cumming, also put in an appearance and was acknowledged by the chairman.

Monday marked not only the first caucus, but also the birthday of Stafford.

Relieved at the opportunity to show charity towards a faction I hold in such low regard, I was happy to join in singing “Happy Birthday.”

The happiness was fleeting.

As I mentioned before, Colorado multi-millionaire Tim Gill described to the caucus his strategy for removing critics of his sex life from the political class. He targets any critics of gay rights at the state legislative levels, marshaling donors via Gill Action Fund mailing lists and so preventing his opponents from replenishing their talent pool.

Further commentary on Gill may be found at YourHub, where I note that every time Gill says “bigot” one may read the word “critic” without loss of information.

Gill's comments were also under-reported, finding mention only in the Rocky Mountain News but not in the Denver Post.

However, the likable GOP shill Hugh Hewitt linked to the story.

The LGBT caucus itself, whose Monday acts were reported here, claimed 274 members, about 6.7 percent of the 4,049 total. Speakers gleefully claimed that the number may not be accurate since more and more delegates were “coming out.”

There were a few allusions to the new changes to the DNC rules, though little that an outsider could understand.

Say what you will about the caucus, they sure know how to exploit multiculturalism. They claimed about one third of their 2008 caucus is composed of youth and about 40 percent were described as “people of color.” One speaker welcomed the changes from past convention caucuses, which he said had been “almost entirely white.”

Caucus speakers spoke of how necessary it was for caucus members to install themselves in the leadership of the other minority caucuses, showing they are well-positioned to cement their hold on the Democrats.

A minority LGBT is a diversity chimera whose identities may shift as politics demands. Further, the caucus adds to the power of the ethnic spoils system of affirmative action, identity politics, and anti-discrimination lawsuits. If they perceive other benefits, self-interested minorities may actually ally with and be co-opted by the LGBT caucus and its issues.

As people who are generally childless, LGBT caucus members have much time to sit on multiple committees and they have money on hand for political endeavors. Further, their sexual liberationism allies them with the dissolute, heterosexual college-educated youths who, secular and single, also have disproportionate influence in the Democratic Party.

At times, it was especially obvious how much the Democrats had changed. Nancy Wohlforth of the AFL-CIO addressed the caucus on Wednesday, trying to muster support for labor. Her pandering was blatant, going so far as to endorse “trans-inclusive” anti-discrimination legislation.

Yet her audience’s reaction generally ranged from indifference to rudeness. About four dozen caucus members, media, and guests were mulling about near the entrance to the ballroom, chatting as if no one were speaking. This peeved me to no end, not only because I was trying to record the session on a voice recorder, but because it was to my mind a clear affront to the Democrats’ blue collar past.

Wohlforth’s remarks received the applause of perhaps one-fourth of the delegates. The response was so tepid that a few attendees in the back engaged in frenzied, over-loud handclapping with the futile hope of inspiring a widespread response.

None came. They were saving their fawning adulation for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Thinking how my Democratic forebears would respond to the rise of the LGBT Caucus was nauseating. Caucus speakers’ allusions to a Wednesday party sponsored by the Stonewall Democrats prompted in me yearnings for a renewed Vice Squad.

At the entrance to the Wednesday meeting somebody was handing out free packs of “Gay Republican” playing cards. Fearing them to be pornographic, I declined, which was not the best example of journalistic instincts.

(Fortunately, a Google search reveals, the card decks only describe, not depict, the unnatural acts of GOP partisans.)

On Monday, Chairman Stafford made a particular point of praising one speaker as the “best dressed person here,” which was again unfounded flattery. As I observed from the rear of the ballroom, the person was dressed in a drab brown business dress with wide shoulders and ugly glasses, looking like a character from a bad eighties movie.

Later, as this person conversed with someone near me, I realized he was that queer sort known in current parlance as “transgendered.” His dress’ broad shoulders masked those of a man.

Another example came before me on Wednesday when, still puzzled over that blatantly false “best dressed” description, I noticed a homely woman with frizzy blonde hair, a pea-green skirt, and an ugly blouse with a rainbow butterfly-like pattern set on a black background.

Yes, he was another one.

Even I could tell this person had the fashion sense of an insensate male. I have better sartorial taste than transgendered DNC delegates. Who knew?

As the song goes, “Dude Look Like a Lady,” but not very well.

It seems male to female transgendereds are mockeries, a man's idea of how a woman should look, somewhat like the way a porn star or a Playboy Bunny are distortions of femininity. So, too, will same-sex marriage parody and distort the real thing.

Yet these wannabe walking parodies are now an influential element in a once great party.

How saddening.

---

Also at the DNC:
Faith Caucus

Women's Caucus

LGBT Caucus

Democrats for Life Town Hall

Humanist Sex Ed for Libertarians

The fall of Governor Eliot Spitzer due to his patronage of a prostitution ring has produced much insensate libertarian boilerplate. The libertarians, taking inspiration from their drunken midnight viewings of Pretty Woman, bemoan a world where sex cannot be openly sold for money.

Ross Douthat essays an attack on those who would treat sex no differently than any other human act. Be forewarned, Douthat quotes some base fellow named Will Wilkinson who writes in crude praise of mutual self-abuse. These are often the same people who treat all sex acts as equal. This habit reflects the leveling tendencies of extreme egalitarianism and echoes the jaded indiscrimination of a long-time john.

Douthat brings up the case of incest, alluding to Leon Kass' "wisdom of repugnance," and asks how the levelers can condemn such an act based on their standards, or lack thereof, which treat sex as just another form of labor.

While such a reductio ad absurdum is well and good for brief debating points and blog entries, this habit of invoking the worst grotesqueries encourages social conservatives to be lazy.

The "wisdom of repugnance" is useless unless it can be clearly stated what positive good is being repugnantly perverted.

Such an enormous good is implicit in the standard conservative argument about the relevance of sex to reproduction. While this relevance is obvious to parents and the self-reflective, the porn-saturated singletons one finds on the internet have successfully blinded themselves to this point.

"Reproduction" in sex talk is a word that can cover over what is being reproduced, namely man. With the exception of Jesus and test-tube babies, all of us were conceived through a certain ordinary sex act.

Treating all forms of sex equally means treating the sex act by which we came into the world as no different than any other.

To deny the importance of that act is to deny the importance of its product: every dead, living, and unborn man and woman.

Perhaps there is enough humanism remaining to find this general denigration of mankind repugnant. Even the most self-regarding parricide must flinch at so blaspheming his own origins, and by implication himself.

Proposing Teepees

Ross Douthat links to a melancholy Atlantic piece from a single middle-aged woman who in her singleton loneliness wishes she had "settled" instead of being too selective in her choice of mate.

One commenter writes:

The real problem with arguments like this is that it assumes that monogamy is the only possible long-term option, and then it's a question of either settling or being lonely.

I have a feeling a lot of people might find a lot more happiness in non-monogamous arrangements where different people fulfill different needs.

Recall the last lines of Tim Burton's Mars Attacks! where the dull-witted hero, fresh from saving the world from a Martian attack, addresses the survivors on the steps of the U.S. Capitol:

So I guess, like, now we just have to start over and start rebuilding everything, like our houses, and...

...But I was thinking maybe instead of houses, we could live in teepees, 'cause...

...it's better in a lot of ways.

When one feels that Bonobo sexual habits are a model for societal reform, one might as well propose living in teepees too.

Thomas Aquinas on Free Love

Aelianus excerpts a passage of St. Thomas Aquinas on the liberality of monogamous marriage while writing in Ex Laodicea's comments:

Friendship consists in a certain equality. Although therefore it is not lawful for a women to have many husbands, because this is contrary to the certainty of offspring; were it lawful for a man to have many wives: the friendship of a wife for her husband would not be freely bestowed, but servile as it were. And this argument is confirmed by experience for where the men have many wives the women are treated like slaves.

(English translation being abridged, my translation follows)

Moreover, intense friendship is not directed towards many, as is laid out in the Philosopher's Ethics VII. If therefore a wife has only one husband, but the man has many wives, there will not be a friendship of equality between both parties. Therefore it would not be a friendship of freedom, but in a certain way one of slavery.

Still more, just as it is said that marriage is to be ordered according to what coincides with good habits. It is however against good habits that one man should have many wives because discord in the domestic family follows from this situation, as experience shows. Therefore it is not fitting that one man should have many wives.

Summa Contra Gentiles III:124

For the Latinists, the original:

Amicitia in quadam aequalitate consistit. Si igitur mulieri non licet habere plures viros, quia hoc est contra certitudinem prolis; liceret autem viro habere plures uxores: non esset liberalis amicitia uxoris ad virum, sed quasi servilis. Et haec etiam ratio experimento comprobatur: quia apud viros habentes plures uxores, uxores quasi ancillariter habentur.

Praeterea. Amicitia intensa non habetur ad multos: ut patet per philosophum in VIII Ethicorum. Si igitur uxor habet unum virum tantum, vir autem habet plures uxores, non erit aequalis amicitia ex utraque parte. Non igitur erit amicitia liberalis, sed quodammodo servilis.

Amplius. Sicut dictum est, matrimonium in hominibus oportet ordinari secundum quod competit ad bonos mores. Est autem contra bonos mores quod unus habeat plures uxores: quia ex hoc sequitur discordia in domestica familia, ut experimento patet. Non est igitur conveniens quod unus homo habeat plures uxores.
Summa Contra Gentiles, III.124

Thomas' contrast between freedom and servility in marriage is an attack on extreme patriarchy, and doubtless is one among many reasons feminism could have emerged in Christian societies.

The perpetually obtuse Richard Dawkins has argued that sexual fidelity is bad because it produces jealousy. He's obviously never witnessed the machinations of a polygamous society where a few powerful men collect women. There, many men are left wifeless and despondent while the women are set at odds with one another, competing for their husband's attention for themselves and their children.

Dawkins' casual assumption that egalitarianism shall triumph in a promiscuous climate can only be attributed to naivety or blindness. A celibate 13th-century monk who once chased off a prostitute with a glowing iron poker was wiser than he.

The Ex Laodicea post in which Thomas Aquinas was cited also links to a sad essay from a struggling man who was duped by gay ideology into believing male homosexuals were actually interested in monogamy. The essay's title could describe plenty of scribbling class deviancy: The Books were a Front for the Porn

Homosexual Millionaires Buying State Legislatures

via Off the Record, more news on local millionaire activist Tim Gill:

Like many other state legislatures last year, Iowa’s was narrowly divided. So all it would take to break the momentum toward a constitutional marriage ban was to tip a few close races. If Democrats took control of the House and Senate, however narrowly, the initiative would die, and with it the likelihood of further legislation limiting civil rights for gays and lesbians. And, fortuitously, Carroll’s own reelection race looked to be one of the closest. He represented the liberal college town of Grinnell and had won the last time around by just a handful of votes.

Over the summer, Carroll’s opponent started receiving checks from across the country—significant sums for a statehouse race, though none so large as to arouse suspicion (the gifts topped out at $1,000). Because they came from individuals and not from organizations, nothing identified the money as being “gay,” or even coordinated. Only a very astute political operative would have spotted the unusual number of out-of-state donors and pondered their interest in an obscure midwestern race. And only someone truly versed in the world of gay causes would have noticed a $1,000 contribution from Denver, Colorado, and been aware that its source, Tim Gill, is the country’s biggest gay donor, and the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics.
They Won't Know What Hit Them, The Atlantic Monthly

See also The Color Purple

Lefty Millionaires Getting The Best Politics That Money Can Buy

National Review's December 4 print edition included a noteworthy article, "The Color Purple" by John J. Miller, covering on Colorado's lefty millionaires:

"The Rocky Mtn News calculated that Dems raised $4 million for friendly 527s, compared with $2.9 mil raised by Republicans."

"Three millionaire liberals are working the state's electoral levers. "They're trying to buy the political structure of the state," says Governor Owens. "Everywhere we look, we see their money and their resources." The ringleader is Tim Gill, the founder of Quark, a software firm; over the last decade, he has donated tens of millions to gay and lesbian causes.

His political activism dates back to 1992, when Colorado voters amended the state constitution to restrict certain gay-rights laws. "Nothing can compare to the psychological trauma of realizing that more than half the people in your state believe that you don't deserve equal rights," he once told the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Gill's allies are heiress Pat Stryker and dotcom entrepreneur Jared Polis. "If you were to put a gun to the head of most Dems, they couldn't tell you who their state chairman is," says one Colorado insider. "But they all know about these millionaires--each is like a mini-George Soros for Colorado.

"The mini-Soroses of Colorado aren't merely dabbling in elections--they're building a permanent infrastructure. "We are finally realizing that how we win is by creating an environment of fear and respect," boasted Gill adviser Ted Trimpa--described by one politico as "the Karl Rove of Colorado"--to the Bay Area Reporter, a gay newspaper in San Francisco earlier this year.

They've established several websites, including ColoradoPols.com, that have started to shape political coverage in the state. "I can't tell you how often reporters would call 36 hours after something appeared there," says Owens. They've also founded Colorado Media Matters, an offshoot of David Brock's national group of left-wing watchdogs. It currently employs about a dozen people. "That's more media critics than there are in the rest of the Colorado media combined," says David Kopel of the Independence Institute. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal group that tries to publicize GOP scandals both real and fake, has a Colorado field office as well. Gill would even like to influence the GOP: He hired former Owens staffer and conservative-movement veteran Sean Duffy to work on the domestic-partnership referendum, and convinced Patrick Guerriero to resign as head of the Log Cabin Republicans in order to run the Gill Action Fund.

[...]

Potentially more important is Gill's determination to export the Colorado model. "If I can make a difference in Colorado, you can make a difference in your home state," he said earlier this year in Miami, at a meeting of financial heavyweights in the gay-rights movement, according to the Rocky Mtn News. To liberals, that may sound like a hope. Conservatives should hear it as a threat.

Lefty 527s include "Coloradoans for Life" and "Clear Peak Colorado."

The essay repeats without support onen allegation, unproven as far as I know, that coloradopols.com is funded by Gill, Polis, and others. This allegation made the light of day over a year ago, from Hans Gullickson of the Colorado GOP.

Tim Gill is a rather unimaginative chap. He believes "Nothing can compare to the psychological trauma of realizing that more than half the people in your state believe that you don't deserve equal rights." Apparently political finance is his therapeutic method of choice. Gill himself dumped millions into the 2006 ballot initiatives, one against Amendment 43, which was a successful anti-homosexual marriage proposition, and in favor of Referendum I, which was a failed and poorly written homosexual domestic partnership initiative.

He's also been busy in many other areas. I find via the Gill Foundation's Annual Report of 2005, that he has funded various endeavors.

Some academic grants caught my eye:
Chicago Theological Seminary $ 185,000; University of Denver/Colorado Seminary $16,000

Under Arts grants are listed the United Church of Christ, $25,000; University of Denver/Colorado Seminary $25,000; Colorado Council of Churches, $15,000

Under broadcasting we find the United Methodist Church of Estes Park which received $5,000

What particularly caught my eye was a $12,000 grant for the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado. The organization endorsed its patron's favored Referendum I, and apparently condemned the marriage amendment.

Its president is Sister Maureen McCormack, a Catholic nun of the Sisters of Loretto in Englewood. Some of her sisters recently made some noise exposing their dubious relationship with Christian orthodoxy, already known to local Catholics.

Finally, in the course of researching this post I have learned that somebody attached my home parish's name to a list of Colorado churches supporting homosexual rights. This is quite false, but I think I know how this got started. Some parish apparatchiks published an endorsement of gay rights initiatives in the Sunday bulletin. They were rebuked by the pastor, who now has even more work to do. In addition to his other duties, he must make sure there aren't opportunistic hypocrites using parish bulletin space(and thus parish funding) to subvert Church teaching and the common good of society.

Several other Catholic parishes were included here, which suggests there is an organized opposition, probably Dignity/Denver, trying to co-opt local "liberal" parishes.

Gerard Bradley on the Common Goods of Common Concepts

The Notre Dame School of Law's Professor Gerard V. Bradley spoke at the Archdiocese of Denver's Respect Life Conference on October 28, 2006. Alas, I'm only now getting around to recording my notes. Bradley discussed the interplay between law and culture, especially the legal regime instituted by Roe v. Wade.

He said that two of the most vital questions of law and life are: "Who is my neighbor"? To whom do I owe justice?

The idea of equality goes out the window if one manipulates who counts as equal. everyone gets treated equally, but we get to decide who "everyone" is.

Bradley spoke of Roe "cutting people off from society" because they inhibit the flourishing of the community. With consistency, he also noted that Thomas Aquinas made a similar argument for the death penalty, saying

For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump"

Bradley also noted the necessity of abortion to the success of feminism in the workplace. He pointed out that the Supreme Court reasoned against overturning Roe v. Wade precisely because it would hinder women's equaltiy:

The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.
-Planned Parenthood vs. Casey

Bradley held that the question "when do people begin?" should be same question as "When do people begin for purposes of legal protection?" The dualism between legal persons and real persons is ultimately pernicious, enabling the subjection of the weak to the strong.

His most insightful commentary came, I believe, when he examined how common conceptions can be common goods. He concentrated on marriage and the impact of its changing definition over time:

Think, for example, of what happened about forty years ago, about '65-'70. If you can remember that long ago, you know that there was a revolution in American law. It was called the "No Fault Divorce" revolution. In the space of literally about six years, we went from a national pattern of divorce only for fault(abandonment, adultery, cruelty mental or physical). It probably was true that you had what amounts to a mutually agreeable divorce, where one or the other party, probably the husband, would lie in court and admit some abuse that didn't really happen.

Be that as it may, the law was divorce only for fault. Within about seven years or so, that was just gone.
Now think about that.

Even those people after this revolution--if you have kids or grandkids who are twenty today, how hard is it for them to come to actually believe and stand with the proposition of the faith "Marriage is permanent." The law changes rapidly, divorce becomes more common, divorce is nobody's fault, and it's OK for the kids too, we told ourselves.
Now it's a pattern. It's not as if the law is making anyone get a divorce, but the understanding that marriage is not permanent, not unconditional, that understanding is now our common property.

The debate about same-sex marriage is a similar kind of thing. People who are advocates of same-sex marriage say, "you don't have to marry the same sex, just let others."

What's at stake in that debate is whether marriage will have a definitional standing in our legal culture, of having any necessary relationship with kids. When you say men can marry men, women can marry women, a man can marry a woman too, but they'll all be married. That means they'll all get involved with marriage, and given what we do know, that a lesbian couple and a gay couple can't have children of their own, that means marriage is no longer intrinsically, that is, necessarily, about children. That's what's at stake in the same-sex marriage debate. That's the part of it that affects all of us.
I fear that I give this same presentation twenty years from now, my example won't be divorce, but kids and marriage. I'll say to you then, think about your kids or grandkids who are twenty-two. Do they understand that marriage is a procreative relationship? A conjugal union?

They might grow up in a society in which people grow up and get married, and it's clear that not only because of same-sex marriage but for other reasons too, that kids really are optional. Some parents do it, some don't, it's for them to judge, it's what they want.

Now that's what affects all of us. Make the legal change, you change the definition of marriage in law--divorce, kids, same-sex marriage--that becomes a common cultural property before long.

Bradley also critiqued a few strategies for reducing abortion.

First is the school which says "Change the culture; then the law, educate, then legislate." This attitude, as well as the view adovcating the opposite order, suffers from a chicken-egg problem, thinking it has to be one first, then the other.

"We have to educate, change the culture, and attack the root causes of abortion" goes a pro-choice, and even some pro-life arguments.

But what are the root cause of unwanted pregnancies?

Not fornication, nor even a lack of personal responsibility

Rather, the root cause of abortion demand is people who have sexual relations, but nonetheless have no interest in having children.

Bradley also held that the idea that pregnancies, as things go, are either wanted or unwanted, is also a root cause. To think that pregnancies are called into being, and a pregnancy not consciously called into being is therefore terminable, is at last to think against humanity. Children are "begotten, not made," unexpected and undesigned gifts rather than simply extensions of adult plans.

Bradley, himself a father, referred to his own life: "I have eight kids. Let's put it this way: I'm not so sure the kids I have are the kids I wanted." The habit of pregnancy at-will cannot be sustained without compromising the nature of parenthood and unconditional love.

Anti-Marriage Radicals Pushing For Gay Marriage

Three months ago, radical polyamorists signed and published a document pushing for their agenda, Beyond Same-Sex Marriage.

I promptly forgot about that statement until today, when I discovered via Eve Tushnet that NRO's Stanley Kurtz has written two responses to this document: Part I, Part II

A sample:

Bronski said that he and his fellow family radicals were tired of being treated like "skunks at a garden party" for honestly owning up to their radical reasons for supporting gay marriage. Bronski then told the story of a radio appearance in which his conservative opponent had claimed that gay marriage would "change society as we know it." Instead of denying it, Bronski agreed with this family traditionalist that gay marriage would indeed provoke a broader cultural transformation, adding that this was a good thing. "That afternoon," Bronski recalled, "I received a barrage of e-mails from marriage equality supporters complaining that I had committed a major faux pas and should not do media on the issue of marriage again unless I was willing to state the "official" marriage equality line, which is that gay marriage is about nothing more than equal rights for couples who love one another."

Kurtz analyzes the self-censorship of the radicals and their cynical alliances with earnest, if deluded, pro-gay marriage liberals out to tame homosexual relationships.

Evangelical Bigwig Ted Haggard Accused of... Ew...

Update: Haggard admits some charges true
======
Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs' New Life Christian Church has been accused by a male prostitute of using the latter's services. Little time for a post before bed, but here are some of my comments interspersed with other information and commentators.

In addition to Amendment 43, the marriage amendment, there's also a domestic partnership initiative on the Colorado ballot, Referendum i. Some Denver media people are spinning this story as a blow against the marriage amendment and in favor of ref. i.

I don't know if this cheerfulness is anything other than wishful thinking on their part, but I'm no Evangelical. As a Catholic, Haggard's advocacy has flown under my radar.

In the sad event that these allegations prove true, here's something to keep in mind:

"The teachers of the law (the scribes) and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So, you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (Matt. 23:2-3)

Is Haggard the driving force behind his church? I'll keep him, his accuser, and his congregation in my prayers.

A Freeper in Haggard's congregation has stated:

1. Pastor Ted's temporarily stepping down is the procedure for any Pastor accussed of a serious moral breach. It does not imply guilt.
2. An outside body will investigate the truthfulness of these allegations.
3. Very curious timing again, very late October surprise.
4. Satan is alive and well and wants to win. He will smear, lie, attack and destroy what he can. Why would he not attack an effective man of God.
5. The truth will come out.

Several weeks back on the Rocky Mountain News' Inside Denver Blog, one Colorado lefty wrote:

Churches need to be careful this year. I am not personally participating (although I agree with the stance behind it), but there are groups that are planning on infiltrating Church services and recording any unethihcal speech that may put in danger the organization's tax exempt status.

He was talking about the marriage amendment advocacy. Though I generally find allegations of conspiracies unconvincing, I wouldn't be too surprised if busybodies like this guy's friends try to generate a hoax story, or seek out truly damaging information on any and all of their opponents.

The cynical hairsplitter in me suggests that Haggard is not really a hypocrite if the allegations are true, because his alleged acts were bisexual, not homosexual. The prostitute's allegations also include meth use. Crazy story before election time.

A few more cross-references:

Haggard accused of anti-Catholicism

A reflection suggesting that some pastors might highlight the sins of Sodom so they don't have to address adultery, etc. among their congregations.

Referendum I: Potential Club Against Religious Freedom

Catholic Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs writes:

Colorado employment law now provides a cause of action against "employers" that "discharge . . . or refuse to hire a person solely on the basis that such employee or person is married or plans to marry another employee of the employer." The statute states that "spouses" can bring a claim for violation of this Act. Referendum I redefines "spouses" to include "domestic partners."

Now, while some employers will not care if one employee joins another in a domestic partnership, others do care ? deeply. Most church-related employers in Colorado, for example, teach that sexual activity should be limited to the marriage of one man and one woman. If Referendum I passes, it will jeopardize the freedom of religious communities, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to engage like-minded persons to advance a community?s religious beliefs and mission.

Some may argue that the problem is small because religious organizations are exempt from the definition of "employer" under the Colorado Spousal Discrimination Act. But church-related employers already know that this exemption will very likely be attacked and may be lost if they cooperate with government by providing faith-based social services supported by government funding. One potential and particularly devious effect of Referendum I will be to force religious organizations participating in charitable choice programs to surrender their freedom to hire only those workers who hold the same religious and moral convictions.

Though I appreciate the bishop's focus on the referendum, I have to ask what church employers are doing employing active homosexuals in the first place. Perhaps it is the same magnanimity which permits the employment of divorced and remarried people, but it is still an oddity.

Additionally, Bishop Sheridan's focus on the effects of the law uppon church-affiliated organizations, but neglects to mention the considerable impact upon lay Catholic employers who run putatively more secular businesses. Such laymen's freedoms are certainly imperiled as well, and they deserve a defense too.

Referendum I Fiscal Concerns Getting Noticed

The Rocky Mountain News reports on the financial costs of the same-sex domestic partnerships initiative. The numbers on both sides are questionable, but at least it highlights how dubious were the figures of the official financial impact statement.

I have previously discussed the initiative's prospects as a Moocher's Dream, and though I forwarded my comments to the Colorado Family Action organization I do not know if I helped influence this strategy.

Colorado Domestic Partnerships: A Moocher's Dream

There is a same-sex domestic partnership referendum on the Colorado ballot this year, Referendum I. It extends the legal benefits and responsibilities of marriage to registered same-sex domestic partners. Its supporters disingenously insist that domestic partnerships are in no way the same as marriage. The considerable moral concerns about legitimizing homosexual acts are excluded from the opposing arguments in the Colorado voters' Blue Book entry on the referendum. Observing the rampant amorality of our government and the collapse of substantive public ethical discussion, this exclusion is hardly surprising.

Yet the Blue Book also neglects fiscal argument nearly as important. It relates especially to the pension provisions of Colorado's Public Employees' Retirement Association(PERA).

PERA pensions are quite generous. According to the association's website at www.copera.org, $2,108,791,000 in payouts were made to 71,401 recipients in 2005. This averages out to about $29,500 per recipient.

The Fiscal Impact Statement for Referendum I(PDF) declares: "Because Referendum I provides that persons in a domestic partnership have the same benefits as spouses, a surviving partner would be eligible for a PERA survivor benefit and enrollment in the PERACare health benefits program. Thus, the referendum would minimally impact PERA benefit liabilities in the Pension Fund and the Health Care Trust Fund."

The impact is minimal only because of the massive size of the pension fund. Should domestic partnerships be instituted, this system is ripe for mooching.

Let?s examine PERA in detail.

PERA members include employees from both state and municipal governments: teachers, highway patrolmen, university employees, and even judges. All members make a contribution of eight percent of their annual salary to their retirement fund, which compounds at a tax-deferred annual five percent interest. Their contribution receives some matching funding from state and county governments. Their years of service are factored into their retirement benefits, with more years of service rightly linked to higher benefits.

There are three payment options for PERA members.

Option one provides the pensioner with a significant lifetime monthly benefit; upon his or her death the remaining pension balance will be matched by PERA and transferred to his or her cobeneficiary in a lump sum payment.

Under option two, following a pensioner's death his or her cobeneficiary will receive a lifetime monthly benefit equal to one-half the monthly benefit the pensioner was receiving at the time of his or her death.

Under option three, following a pensioner's death, his or her cobeneficiary will receive a lifetime monthly benefit equal to the monthly benefit the pensioner was receiving at the time of his or her death. IRS rules currently prohibit non-spouses more than ten years the beneficiary's junior from receiving option three benefits, but it is unclear whether domestic partnerships will evade such prohibitions. Regardless, there are always the first two options.

How might domestic partnership impact PERA? The legislation explicitly forbids domestic partnerships contracted between immediate family members: "an individual shall not enter into a domestic partnership with an uncle or aunt or with a niece or nephew, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood." However, this does not forbid other familial contracts. The retired public servant who alerted me to this looming problem noted that, should his beloved wife proceed him in death, he could contract a partnership with his eighteen-year-old grand-nephew(or some other favored youngster). With some three decades of service, upon his death his grand-nephew could receive this substantial lifetime monthly pension of a veteran worker, freeloading off of state employees and taxpayers for the duration of his long and healthy life.

The only social penalty this pensioner?s domestic partner in theft would face is an inability legally to marry while in a domestic partnership. Considering late marrying ages and contemporary habits of cohabitation, it is unclear whether this is a significant disincentive for a young man who must simply wait a few years until his partner, so generous with other peoples' money, finally expires.

I note here that I have neglected to examine here how such a couple could exploit health care plans under Referendum I provisions. Surely further explorations in this area will provide worries for the civic-minded, and delights for the opportunistic.

Referendum I's proponents claim domestic partnerships are not about marriage, but about basic legal rights. Yet precisely because they insist that their proposed domestic arrangement isn't really marriage, their system has little protection against cynical abuses such as that described here. Most people acknowledge a dislike for mercenary marriages. Yet why should domestic partnerships, lacking the respected name of matrimony, command the good behavior of their participants?

Names mean things. They have significance. Literally, they signify. Those advocating domestic partnerships equivocate between marriage and a state identical in material and legal benefits but certainly equivalent neither in content nor purpose. Such equivocations make for bad law. Should Referendum I pass, this wordplay will make for even worse finances.

(cross-posted at Denver YourHub